Is California's "Firewall" Penetrable?

California Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell countered criticism by Education Secretary Arne Duncan about a state law restricting the use of student assessment data in teacher evaluations. As reported in today's Los Angeles Times, O'Connell highlighted Long Beach Unified as a school district that does exactly that.

California's top education official sought Tuesday to counter federal criticism of the state's reluctance to use student test scores to evaluate teachers, paying a visit to Long Beach to highlight one of the few California school districts to make extensive use of such data.

The Long Beach Unified School District's use of student scores to assess the effectiveness of programs, instructional strategies and teachers is a rarity in California, and state Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell called it a model for other California school districts during a hastily arranged round-table discussion.

At issue is a 2006 California law that prohibits use of student data to evaluate teachers at the state level. O'Connell said Obama and Duncan misunderstand the law, which does not bar local districts from using the information.

O'Connell also released a statement on this issue last week.

Long Beach Unified is a 2009 finalist for the Broad Prize and was recently profiled by TIME magazine as one of the top urban school systems in the nation.

(Re)Focusing on What Matters

Last week I spoke at a meeting of the Lumina Foundation’s Achieving the Dream Initiative, a meeting of policymakers from 15 states all working to improve the effectiveness of community colleges. At one point, a data working group shared results of its efforts to create new ways to measure college outputs. This was basically a new kind of report card, one capable of reporting results for different subgroups of students, and enabling comparisons of outcomes across colleges. Something like it might someday replace the data collection currently part of the IPEDS.

While it's always gratifying to see state policymakers engaging with data and thinking about how to use it in meaningful ways, I couldn’t help but feel that even this seemingly forward-thinking group was tending toward the status quo. The way we measure and report college outputs right now consistently reinforces a particular way of thinking-- a framework that focuses squarely on colleges and their successes or failures.

What’s the matter with that, you’re probably wondering? After all, aren’t schools the ones we need to hold accountable for outcomes and improved performance? Well, perhaps. But what we’re purportedly really interested in—or what we should be interested in—is students, and their successes or failures. If that's the case, then students, rather than colleges, need to be at the very center of our thinking and policymaking. Right now this isn't the case.

Let’s play this out a bit more. Current efforts are afoot to find ways to measure college outcomes that make more colleges comfortable with measurement and accountability--and thus help bring them onboard. That typically means using measures that allow even the lowest-achieving colleges at least a viable opportunity for success, and using measures colleges feels are meaningful, related to what they think they’re supposed to be doing. An example: the 3-year associates degree completion rates of full-time community college entrant deemed “college ready” by a standardized test. We can measure this for different schools and report the results. Where does that get us? We can then see which colleges have higher rates, and which have lower ones.

But then what? Can we then conclude some colleges are doing a better job than others? Frankly, no. It’s quite possible that higher rates at some colleges are attributable to student characteristics or contextual characteristics outside an individual college (e.g. proximity to other colleges, local labor market, region, etc) that explain the differences. But that’s hard to get people to focus on when what’s simplest to see are differences between colleges.

It's not clear that this approach actually helps students. What if, instead, states reported outcomes for specified groups of students without disaggregating by college? How might the policy conversation change? Well, for example, a state could see a glaring statewide gap in college completion among majority and minority students. It would then (hopefully) move to the next step of looking for sources of the problem—likely trying to identify the areas with the greatest influence, and the areas with the most policy-amenable areas of influence. This might lead analysts back to the colleges in the state to look for poor or weak performers, but it might instead lead them to aspects of k-12 preparation, state financial aid policy, the organizational structure of the higher education system, etc. The point is that in order to help students, states would need to do more than simply point to colleges and work to inspire them to change. They’d be forced to try and pinpoint the source(s) of the problems and then work on them. I expect the approaches would need to vary by state.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to absolve any college of responsibility for educating its students. What I’m suggesting is that we think hard about why the emphasis right now rests so heavily on relative college performance—an approach that embraces and even creates more insitutional competition—rather than on finding efficient and effective ways to increase the success of our students. Are we over-utilizing approaches, often adopted without much critical thought, that reify and perpetuate our past mistakes? I think so.

Image Credit: www.openjarmedia.com

Where's That Dutch Kid?

Gotham Schools reports that some in New York State don't believe that the state's law that restricts student assessment data from being used in teacher tenure decisions will hamper the state from securing Race To The Top funding. Is this just wishful thinking or is this whole issue being oversimplified by proposed federal RTTT regulations?

New York State’s tenure law, passed last year under pressure from teachers unions, says student test score data can’t be the sole determinant of whether a teacher gets tenure. But three top officials — teachers union president Randi Weingarten, Board of Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch, and incoming State Education Commissioner David Steiner — are arguing that the law will not disqualify New York from the fund.

“It is our firm belief that the language of Race to the Top funding does not preclude New York,” Steiner said today. “New York has a law on the books that relates strictly to tenure.”

Weingarten noted that a second section of the same law explicitly requires teachers’ annual evaluations, which take place even after they receive tenure, to be based in part on how they use test score data to improve their instruction.

“The way in which teachers use data in their classroom instruction is specifically included in the definition of what confers tenure onto a classroom teacher,” she said. ”How teachers use data is one of the criteria for getting tenure. Just not the data in and of itself.”

NY UPDATE: Charlie Barone says BS.

Likewise, in Wisconsin -- another state singled out by Education Secretary Arne Duncan for having a "ridiculous" law that restricts the use of student assessment data in teacher evaluations -- the Governor's office says that the law only applies to data from the state assessment. Assumedly, other assessment data could be used instead, although that creates costs and logistical hurdles for school districts, some very small. From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

According to Chapter 118.30(2)(c) of the Wisconsin State Statutes, "the results of examinations to pupils enrolled in public schools, including charter schools, may not be used to evaluate teacher performance, to discharge, suspend or formally discipline a teacher, or as the reason for the nonrenewal of a teacher's contract."

By Friday afternoon, state Sen. Randy Hopper (R-Fond du Lac) and Rep. Brett Davis (R-Oregon) had announced plans to introduce legislation that would change Chapter 118.30(2)(c) to eliminate the prohibition on using state testing in teacher evaluations.

But according to Gov. Jim Doyle's office, the Wisconsin statute is not at odds with the state's Race to the Top eligibility.

"Our reading of the current law is that it only prohibits the use of the WKCE (Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination) in evaluating teachers, and that other student assessments may be used to evaluate teachers," said Lee Sensenbrenner, a spokesman for Doyle's office.

Sensenbrenner said the governor will be putting together a comprehensive application for the Race to the Top competition that puts the state in a position to succeed.

As part of that, he said, the state would "review the existing law to see if any changes need to be made to strengthen our competitive position."

UPDATE: On Teacher Beat, Stephen Sawchuk has a pithy update on this issue -- and the pleadings of California, New York and Wisconsin about how this really isn't a problem. Really, it isn't!